Plan for 45p minimum alcohol cost

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Your thoughtsh comrades? *hic* :tongue_smilie:

Ministers are proposing a minimum price of 45p a unit for the sale of alcohol in England and Wales as part of a drive to tackle problem drinking.
The Home Office has launched a 10-week consultation on the plan, arguing it will help reduce the levels of ill-health and crime related to alcohol.
It is also considering banning multi-buy promotions, such as two-for-the-price-of-one.
The 45p proposal is 5p higher than the figure suggested by ministers in March.
It comes after pressure has been mounting on the government to follow Scotland's lead, where 50p has been proposed.
The aim of a minimum price would be to alter the cost of heavily-discounted drinks sold in shops and supermarkets. It is not expected to affect the price of drinks in many pubs.
The Home Office said the consultation was targeted at "harmful drinkers and irresponsible shops".
A spokesman added: "Those who enjoy a quiet drink or two have nothing to fear from our proposals."
The 45p minimum would mean a can of strong lager could not be sold for less than £1.56 and a bottle of wine below £4.22.
Research carried out by Sheffield University for the government shows a 45p minimum would reduce the consumption of alcohol by 4.3%, leading to 2,000 fewer deaths and 66,000 hospital admissions after 10 years.
The number of crimes would drop by 24,000 a year as well, researchers suggested.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64429000/gif/_64429613_alcohol_pricing_464in.gif
There has been evidence of some outlets selling alcohol at a loss to encourage customers through the doors, with cans of lager going for 20p and two-litre bottles of cider available for under £2.

(more at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20515918)

[ed miliband]

kill this with fire, and anybody who supports it.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Rather than killing them with fire, I say they ought to be drowned in a barrel of their favorite wine.:lol:

[ed miliband]

it's really sad that it will only be the most right-wing members of parliament that oppose this.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Labour really ought to oppose since it will raise the cost of a drink for workers in the UK. Has Labour completely gone over to nanny state liberalism?

[ed miliband]

Labour really ought to oppose since it will raise the cost of a drink for workers in the UK. Has Labour completely gone over to nanny state liberalism?

uh... they're its pioneers, basically.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Labour really ought to oppose since it will raise the cost of a drink for workers in the UK. Has Labour completely gone over to nanny state liberalism?

lol dude the labour party has sucked for like at least a million years

[Ostrinski]

They tried this with tobacco in Spain. Didn't seem to work, there are just as many people smoking in Spain as the US maybe more, and cigarettes are lot more expensive.

[piet11111]

Just ask yourself "where will this money go ?" then you realize it goes to the state and that it will only be used to improve its financial position instead of preventing cuts elsewhere.

[LiberationTheologist]

They tried this with tobacco in Spain. Didn't seem to work, there are just as many people smoking in Spain as the US maybe more, and cigarettes are lot more expensive.

Well I would say it worked exactly as planned them. More money for state, higher prices for the buyers and the same amount of profits for producers.

The state (capitalists own it) and capitalists won, the people lost.


Just ask yourself "where will this money go ?" then you realize it goes to the state and that it will only be used to improve its financial position instead of preventing cuts elsewhere.

As for the alcohol tax, I would oppose it but I would support harsher penalties for driving under the influence and greater punishment for drunk idiots who start fights and injure or kill people while they act like drunk idiots. Is the tax money being directed toward those purposes? I doubt it.

[Art Vandelay]

I treat my booze, like redneck republicans treat their guns in the states; I'd be buying all the scotch off the shelves before that bullshit got passed.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It is not expected to affect the price of drinks in many pubs. I don't know what's worse, that prices to buy from the store are going to go up or that pub prices are so high as to not be affected.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It should be higher. That graphic is ridiculous pro-low alcohol pricing propaganda. Nobody buys 100cl Vodka, 70cl is the norm. And most people drink mass produced piss that is 3-5% strength, which will still be dirt cheap under these proposals.

Make the strongest spirits unaffordable and our alcohol problem will soon dissipate.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Some of the comments here sound positively petit-bourgeois. :laugh:

[piet11111]

It should be higher. That graphic is ridiculous pro-low alcohol pricing propaganda. Nobody buys 100cl Vodka, 70cl is the norm. And most people drink mass produced piss that is 3-5% strength, which will still be dirt cheap under these proposals.

Make the strongest spirits unaffordable and our alcohol problem will soon dissipate.

The only alcohol problem i have is when i run out so fuck you kindly good sir :mad:.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It should be higher. That graphic is ridiculous pro-low alcohol pricing propaganda. Nobody buys 100cl Vodka, 70cl is the norm. And most people drink mass produced piss that is 3-5% strength, which will still be dirt cheap under these proposals.

Make the strongest spirits unaffordable and our alcohol problem will soon dissipate. How about we not do that
but I mean hey man I'll drink to your health.


Some of the comments here sound positively petit-bourgeois. :laugh: If I'm sober enough to remember it the day after, it's not my revolution.

[ed miliband]

things like this really bring out the right-wing libertarian in me...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Gadsden_flag.svg/250px-Gadsden_flag.svg.png

[hetz]

If I'm sober enough to remember it the day after, it's not my revolution. Is this some fucking joke?



Anyway, alcohol, tobacco and so on should definitely be taxed more.

This seems too much though.

[ed miliband]

Is this some fucking joke?



Anyway, alcohol, tobacco and so on should definitely be taxed more.

This seems too much though.

fuck off.

[hetz]

Yeah, I guess I was wrong then.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Anyway, alcohol, tobacco and so on should definitely be taxed more.

This seems too much though.

I see no reason why revolutionaries ought to be tax collectors for the bourgeois state, and I am not sure that we ought to tax these commodities excessively after the Revolution. Workers' ought to be able to enjoy and drink and/or a smoke without being taxed to death.

[ed miliband]

why should they be taxed more? i mean, arguing anything should be taxed more means you're arguing for the management of capitalism; why should communists involve themselves in that?

[hetz]

What? Then why do we even discuss the bourgeois state's budget, welfare, how taxes are spent and so on?

All I'm saying is that such substances should be taxed more than milk and bread or bubblegum, and that's something most drinkers and smokers don't have a problem with.




why should they be taxed more?
Because they're drugs that should be discouraged ( alcoholism in particular is a great problem ) and taxes should cover up for the damage and harm caused by smoking and alcohol.

[GoddessCleoLover]

What?

All I'm saying is that such substances should be taxed more than milk and bread or bubblegum, and that's something most drinkers and smokers don't have a problem with.


Perhaps, but I would prefer real world workers rather than Revleft vanguard intellectuals to decide HOW much more.

[ed miliband]

Perhaps, but I would prefer real world workers rather than Revleft vanguard intellectuals to decide HOW much more.

i mean, shit, if it was a revleft vanguard that would be preferable (...or probably not); in reality it's a coalition of labour, conservative and liberal mps, all probably alcoholic themselves, but hey -- getting pissed on champagne is better than the lower orders drinking special brew.

[hetz]

Perhaps, but I would prefer real world workers rather than Revleft vanguard intellectuals to decide HOW much more. Wait, is it up to workers or smokers? :laugh:

[GoddessCleoLover]

Workers.
And IMO Ed Miliband is right to note that the topic on the table is not tax increases after some hoped-for revolution, but tax increases by the bourgeois state. We ought not support this regressive anti-worker tax increase.

[hetz]

Workers.
What about workers who are virulently anti-smoking/drinking?
Whose position is right, from a "class perspective"?
:laugh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

[UK government]Dealing with the actual reasons behind why people drink cheap gut-rot is too difficult![/UK government]

[GoddessCleoLover]

Majority rules I suppose, but that is off-topic and who knows if we will even live to see the Revolution.

[ed miliband]

[UK government]Dealing with the actual reasons behind why people drink cheap gut-rot is too difficult![/UK government]

but at the same time, i don't want the uk gov to poke their noses into my depression* or whatever. if i drink a lot, i'm going to drink a lot, regardless of the reasons.


*thankfully i'm better now.

[hetz]

Majority rules I suppose, but that is off-topic and who knows if we will even live to see the Revolution. I don't agree that the majority should have the right to for example impose bans or prohibtions.
It's off topic because "the workers" you mentioned in that post turned out to be not as quite simple as we thought.
:laugh:




Dealing with the actual reasons behind why people drink cheap gut-rot is too difficult!Why do people drink? There are many reasons why, some of which should not be of interest to the state. Besides, notice that high consumption of alcohol doesn't even lead to high rates of alcoholism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

but at the same time, i don't want the uk gov to poke their noses into my depression* or whatever. if i drink a lot, i'm going to drink a lot, regardless of the reasons.


*thankfully i'm better now.

True, but it's not really about public health, is it? I reckon it's got more to do with something beginning with R and rhyming with avenue.


Why do people drink? There are many reasons why, some of which should not be of interest to the state.

Of course. I don't think it's even been established that it's a problem worthy of this kind of intervention.


Besides, notice that high consumption of alcohol doesn't even lead to high rates of alcoholism.

Would stuff like this really reduce alcohol consumption in the first place? I'm dubious.

[Art Vandelay]

Is this some fucking joke?



Anyway, alcohol, tobacco and so on should definitely be taxed more.

fuck off (x2)

[ed miliband]

drinking a beer, about to go for a smoke; feel positively revolutionary.

[o well this is ok I guess]

drinking a beer, about to go for a smoke; feel positively revolutionary. Drinking MD20/20. Prole as fuck.

[ed miliband]

Drinking MD20/20. Prole as fuck.

what you smoking?

[hetz]

ITT: people talking about what they're drinking and smoking right now.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A reduction of 24,000 crimes?! How the hell did they come up with that figure?


Some of the comments here sound positively petit-bourgeois. :laugh:

What do you mean by that? :confused:

[o well this is ok I guess]

what you smoking? Shit man I'm not made of money. No smokes or anything until payday.

[Quail]

Because they're drugs that should be discouraged ( alcoholism in particular is a great problem ) and taxes should cover up for the damage and harm caused by smoking and alcohol.
Alcoholism is a mental health issue, not really an issue of choice. Higher prices on alcohol doesn't do anything about the reasons that people become alcoholics in the first place, and if they can't afford alcohol they'll probably turn to some other unhealthy coping mechanism which will need treatment.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I notice UK alcohol price is quite low in the chart. Compared to here, I mean. Yet there's still enormous alcoholism here, and then they also limit supply by having the state-owned (well it's being privatised now, and they want to sell spirits on farms to encourage some sort of local alcohol-tourism) and the effect of that on the overall consumption rate must be rather slight, for it's still quite dramatic. There's then also an irony inherent in the operation of the alcohol monopoly, because despite being charged with "corporate social responsibility" and to promote public health, it must make a profit...

[GoddessCleoLover]

US alcohol prices seem a bit lower than those in the UK. Takayuki must live in alcohol tax hell.:(

[Grenzer]

It should be higher. That graphic is ridiculous pro-low alcohol pricing propaganda. Nobody buys 100cl Vodka, 70cl is the norm. And most people drink mass produced piss that is 3-5% strength, which will still be dirt cheap under these proposals.

Make the strongest spirits unaffordable and our alcohol problem will soon dissipate.

Fuck that. I'm going to drink what I please.. this is just liberalism frankly. You might as well go on talking about the glorious "War on Drugs and Crime".

[GoddessCleoLover]

Why do some Revleft posters feel compelled to advocate being tax collectors for the bourgeois state?:confused:

[hetz]

Higher prices on alcohol doesn't do anything about the reasons that people become alcoholics in the first place, and if they can't afford alcohol they'll probably turn to some other unhealthy coping mechanism which will need treatment.
As I said, there are many reasons why people become alcoholics, and some of them are not the state's business.
And if prices are too high many alcoholics will turn to making their own moonshine.


Why do some Revleft posters feel compelled to advocate being tax collectors for the bourgeois state?
I don't want the state to spent half of its health budget ( that is, the money every citizen shares ) for alcohol ( not just alcoholism ) and smoking related harm and illnesses.
I'm a smoker and I don't have a problem with paying some taxes on tobacco, as long as they aren't outrageous. Same for hard spirits and such.
It's only fair.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fuck that. I'm going to drink what I please.. this is just liberalism frankly. You might as well go on talking about the glorious "War on Drugs and Crime".

I like drinking too, but there's a lot of excess supply out there that, combined with pro-industry propaganda I think leads to abnormal consumption of alcohol in this country. The focus, from my own personal experience, is on consumption of cheap multi-pack/large bottles of beer/cider (strongbow, fosters, own brand etc.), or on bottles of cheap spirits (Glen's, own brand, other dodgy brands).

If we're looking at the problem of alcohol consumption in the UK (which it is, a social problem arguably!) and how to limit the industry, minimum pricing combined with heavy limits on propaganda adverts are two very necessary measures.

It's a scandal that the same people who are very pro-drugs legalisation on the basis that they are mature enough and knowledgeable enough to take certain fairly dangerous substances in a relatively safe way then proceed to drink a hugely dangerous amount on a regular basis. Alcohol is another drug and should be treated as the dangerous substance that it is, and should be drunk in moderation. This whole idea that it's okay to get totally wasted is a massive blemish on our culture.

[Will Scarlet]

What about workers who are virulently anti-smoking/drinking?
Whose position is right, from a "class perspective"?
:laugh:
The one which is not interested in punishing the poor for existing. :thumbup1:

[Quail]

Sorry if this reply is less coherent than intended. I'm pretty drunk. :blushing:

As I said, there are many reasons why people become alcoholics, and some of them are not the state's business.
And if prices are too high many alcoholics will turn to making their own moonshine.

If the government genuinely cared about reducing the amount of unhealthy drinking, they would look into the reasons why people become alcoholics and try to address them though. Supposedly the state is there to act in the best interests of the people it claims to represent, and I think that most causes of alcoholism are a product of the society in which we live. For example, a high proportion of alcoholics have anxiety disorders. There are a lot of causes of various anxiety disorders, but stress and shitty circumstances universally make any anxiety disorder worse. Obviously I don't think that the state actually acts or actually can act in the interest of the general population, but it does claim to, and it obviously falls short when it comes to mental health issues. If the state of a society is causing people to have mental health problems then it should be the responsibility of that society to make sure those people get adequate treatment.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A problem with the whole 'find the root cause of alcoholism' is that, by and large, we know the causes: poverty, alienation, destitution etc.. These are the absolute root causes. And we know that no bourgeois government has the ability (Even if the will is in place, which most of the time it is not) to effect a proper change on this.

We must recognise that alcohol is a drug, in its pure form a terrible drug. The fact that it, in effect, must be cut with a huge range of things that even heroin or crack don't need to be, tells us something about it. And that people make a profit out of selling it is something extra to put on the moral charge list! In truth, alcohol (along with tobacco) should be in the same bracket as any other harmful drug. But I do recognise that we cannot be ahistoric in our analysis. Alcohol is a legal and highly popular commodity and we can't/won't change that. The answer, therefore, is to do our best to ensure, via pricing mechanisms, that:

a) it is not possible for moonshine to be sold legitimately over the counter - own brand, 'Glens' Vodka etc. All this harmful shit must surely feed alcoholism and dilute the idea that alcohol can be enjoyed, instead of being consumed faster and faster and faster.
b) it is not possible for people to drink in excess, all the time. Granted, sometimes we all (I include myself in this) want to drink for relaxation or stress relief or just to have a good time, and sometimes this veers away from moderation and into heavier territory. But that's not alcoholism. Alcoholism constitutes drinking heavily more than 'sometimes' - it becomes habitual.

The free-market argument against pricing regulation doesn't really stand up either, in the face of the fact that externalities exist. We assume that alcohol is purchased for consumption, not to just sit pretty in the bottle. Thus, beyond a certain quantity exchanged, alcohol has hugely negative social externalities (anti-social behaviour and, above all, resultant increases in healthcare and social care expenditure resulting from ramprant alcoholism).

I just see minimum pricing as a necessary least-bad solution. We cannot go on hiding behind this stupid, immature, faux-radical 'yeah but everyone loves a drink fuck it' argument.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Out near where I live, in the villages where alcohol is scarce, people turn to drinking mouthwash or huffing gasoline.

It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to escape their reality.

[hetz]

Out near where I live, in the villages where alcohol is scarce, people turn to drinking mouthwash or huffing gasoline.
Why do that when you can make moonshine? It ain't exactly rocket science and it's still better than drinking mouthwash.
It's also an old folk tradition, I find it hard to imagine that people in the countryside don't make their own alcohol anymore!

[Os Cangaceiros]

I honestly don't know. My family makes homebrew, pretty good stuff too, not like the rotgut some people make.

In certain places (like Bethel until recently) alcohol is illegal, and I think even the makings of alcohol like malt are illegal. This is an OK article about the situation:

http://foolocracy.com/2010/01/bethel-alaska-votes-to-allow-alcohol-and-votes-and-votes/

[Will Scarlet]

We cannot go on hiding behind this stupid, immature, faux-radical 'yeah but everyone loves a drink fuck it' argument.
lmao, what is faux radical about that? That's just something everyone who isn't a moralising hat stand thinks. Trying to paint the opinions of Ian Duncan Smith as radical is what's 'faux radical' here if anything is.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What? Then why do we even discuss the bourgeois state's budget, welfare, how taxes are spent and so on?

All I'm saying is that such substances should be taxed more than milk and bread or bubblegum, and that's something most drinkers and smokers don't have a problem with.




Because they're drugs that should be discouraged ( alcoholism in particular is a great problem ) and taxes should cover up for the damage and harm caused by smoking and alcohol.

You don't see me whining for higher taxes on things like food, video games, trading card games, anime, RPGs, online-dating sites, porn, computers, grabby hands, fountain drinks, sugar, motorized rascals, elevators, escalators, etc. etc. or any of the various other things that cause and perpetuate obesity; which in America and most other places in the Western world such as the UK, for another example, is an epidemic. So, if you nerds could kindly leave working people's booze and smokes alone, that'd be great. Has any of that nonsense ever worked in the past? When has anti-booze campaigns of any sort worked?

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO leftists ought to avoid playing the role of tax collectors for the bourgeois state. We definitely ought to avoid supporting increases in excises on items generally consumed by workers. Tax the bourgeoisie instead.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

lmao, what is faux radical about that? That's just something everyone who isn't a moralising hat stand thinks. Trying to paint the opinions of Ian Duncan Smith as radical is what's 'faux radical' here if anything is.

You've clearly ignored the large parts of my previous posts where I said I wasn't coming at this from a moral standpoint. Indeed, I even made quite clear that I quite like a drink myself. The issue here is how we can provide an economic solution to alcoholism. It's not a complete policy, but one (economic) part of it; for it to work we of course need to have social and cultural solutions too. But to me, from my experiences, it seems as though the worst (though not all - it probably excludes the middle-aged, 'middle class' drinkers) and most anti-social alcoholism is spawned by horrendously cheap alcohol of a curious quality. In order to ensure that:

a) alcohol is not so cheap as to allow consumption in huuuuuge quantities, and
b) that if alcohol is freely available, it is at least guaranteed to be of high quality

then minimum pricing is certainly a practicable economic solution.

I'll ignore the IDS 'radical' comment, it's just stupid ok. :thumbup1:

[GoddessCleoLover]

Alcoholics will feed their need no matter how high the tax on alcohol might become. The way to deal with alcoholism is to have programs to deal with alcoholism, not by raising taxes for all drinkers.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's hugely reductionist. You are essentially saying no to tax out of ideology. There's nothing wrong with a(n) (indirect) tax if, by reducing consumption of a good, it actually has positive social externalities, such as reducing potential future health expenditure and improving the health of a large number of members of society, as well as leading to less anti-social incidents.

Or we can just sit on our high horse, blame capitalism, never admit that any tax can have any positive effect blah blah blah..

[GoddessCleoLover]

Sorry to disappoint, but I just don't really buy into the premise that taxation is the best way to deal with social problems such as alcoholism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

That's hugely reductionist. You are essentially saying no to tax out of ideology. There's nothing wrong with a(n) (indirect) tax if, by reducing consumption of a good, it actually has positive social externalities, such as reducing potential future health expenditure and improving the health of a large number of members of society, as well as leading to less anti-social incidents.

Or we can just sit on our high horse, blame capitalism, never admit that any tax can have any positive effect blah blah blah..

But it really hasn't though. I've seen it in America in just the short time that I've been here. Anytime they've tried to scale back tobacco consumption through increased taxes, more and harsher propaganda, proposal laws to eliminate all flavored tobacco products, etc. it's been ineffective. Further, the assumed potential positive benefits caused by such taxation are just that, assumed and is premised on a lot of assumed variables and so on. You're talking about addiction as if addicts really would let a slight spike in prices for their product stop them from obtaining and consuming said product. Addiction isn't rational, this proposed tax seems like it'd do nothing but put more working class wage scraps back into the hands of the bourgeois state.

I agree with Gramsci, taxation is no way to deal with an illness since that what alcoholism and drug addiction is, it's a psychological and (in a lot of cases) physical illness. Imho, any alcohol or drug related issue should be left to healthcare professionals, not economists and politicians. So, you raise taxes, what's to say they won't steal more booze, borrow more money and anything else to obtain what they want. Serious drinkers do that now anyway even before the actual effects of this proposed tax could even be analyzed.

[hetz]

Sorry to disappoint, but I just don't really buy into the premise that taxation is the best way to deal with social problems such as alcoholism.
It isn't, but it moderate taxation will have positive effects.
Most binge drinkers and young people still aren't alcoholics anyway.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But it really hasn't though. I've seen it in America in just the short time that I've been here. Anytime they've tried to scale back tobacco consumption through increased taxes, more and harsher propaganda, proposal laws to eliminate all flavored tobacco products, etc. it's been ineffective. Further, the assumed potential positive benefits caused by such taxation are just that, assumed and is premised on a lot of assumed variables and so on. You're talking about addiction as if addicts really would let a slight spike in prices for their product stop them from obtaining and consuming said product. Addiction isn't rational, this proposed tax seems like it'd do nothing but put more working class wage scraps back into the hands of the bourgeois state.

I agree with Gramsci, taxation is no way to deal with an illness since that what alcoholism and drug addiction is, it's a psychological and (in a lot of cases) physical illness. Imho, any alcohol or drug related issue should be left to healthcare professionals, not economists and politicians. So, you raise taxes, what's to say they won't steal more booze, borrow more money and anything else to obtain what they want. Serious drinkers do that now anyway even before the actual effects of this proposed tax could even be analyzed.

Tobacco is somewhat different as it was expensive already, and, as far as i'm aware, there's no horrendously cheap brands (aside from rolling your own, that can't really be taxed though), and you tend to get them from one place.

Alcohol tends to be bought either from off-licences or clubs/bars/pubs depending on which is cheapest. If they all had to charge a uniform minimum price and then profits were creamed off in further taxation it would, I imagine, have the following effects:

a) firstly depressing demand moderately
b) then cause a negative supply shock due to the sudden lack of profitability of selling alcohol

The problem with the current proposals is that the price is too low and it won't apply to bars and clubs. It needs to be more wide-ranging IMO.